Superman Legal Big Win For Warner Bros

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal today ruled in Warner Bros.‘ favor in the long standing copyright battle with the heirs of Supermanco-creator Jerry Siegel that there was a binding agreement in 2001 giving the studio full rights to the superhero character. The ruling (read it here) Thursday is basically a green light for Warner Bros. to now move forward with its Superman big screen reboot Man of Steeland other related properties without the specter of further legal action from Laura Siegel Larson and the creators’ other heirs hanging over them like Kryptonite. “Today’s ruling vindicates DC Comics’ long-held position that it entered into a binding agreement with the Jerry Siegel family in 2001. The Court’s decision paves the way for the Siegels finally to receive the compensation they negotiated for and which DC has been prepared to pay for over a decade. We are extremely pleased that Superman’s adventures can continue to be enjoyed across all media platforms worldwide for generations to come,” said Warner Bros in a statement Thursday.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling today admonished a previous lower court decision that denied the claims of Warner Bros-owned DC Comics that they had a deal over a decade ago with the Siegel heirs. “The district judge erred in granting summary judgment to Larson as to DC’s third and fourth counterclaims. The central issue in these counterclaims is whether the parties reached a binding settlement agreement during their negotiations over the rights to Superman in 2001 and 2002. The district judge, however, failed to address whether the October 19, 2001, letter from Larson’s then-attorney constituted an acceptance of terms negotiated between the parties, and thus was sufficient to create a contract. We hold, as a matter of law, that the October 19, 2001, letter did constitute such an acceptance,” said the trio of judges on the appeal panel today. The panel then threw the issue back to the district judge to reconsider DC’s other claims. “Because a judgment on those claims in DC’s favor would appear to render moot all of the other questions in this lawsuit, we decline to address these other issues at this time,” the six-page ruling added. Through the courts, the estate of Jerry Siegel had recaptured half of the original Superman rights in 2008, with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster to do the same in 2013. A ruling in October by U.S. District Judge Otis Wright III said that an agreement the estate of Joe Shuster signed 20 years ago with DC Comics rules out any effort by his heirs to terminate the copyright granted to the Warner Bros-owned company Today’s ruling pretty much does the same to the Siegel heirs.

Also today, the 9th Circuit panel agreed (read the ruling here) with Judge Wright that because the estate’s lawyer Marc Toberoff had established business arrangements through his own company Pacific Pictures with heirs of Siegel and Shuster, he was not protected under California’s anti-SLAAP statute. The statute is designed to protect rights owners against legal intimidation. This ruling today paves the way for WB to proceed with further legal action against the attorney. Warner Bros are represented by Daniel Petrocelli and Matthew Kline of LA firm O’Melveny & Myers. Laura Siegel Larson and the estate of Jerry Siegel are represented by attorney Toberoff and Richard Kendall of Kendall Brill & Klieger.

13 Comments

Ed Heard • on Jan 10, 2013 12:08 pm

The heirs are getting greedy. This Superman ownership battle has been going on for DECADES.Warner and DC have bent over backwards in order to keep goodwill between all parties involved . This thing needs to be settled and put to rest.

Jesse • on Jan 10, 2013 1:52 pm

I wouldn’t say that the heirs were getting greedy, the problem was that they were manipulated by that horrible man that they call a lawyer. Good thing this paves the way for Warner Bros. to sue his sorry ass.

Chazz • on Jan 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Damn, I had a gut feeling it would end up like this one way or another.
Business as usual for Warner Brother/DC Comics.

Duder • on Jan 10, 2013 1:37 pm

Chazz – I’m not sure what you mean by “business as usual”.

The Siegels heirs signed away their termination rights over a decade ago, and were due to receive millions in return.

Then Toberoff came along and convinced them they could get more by postulating thT agreement wasn’t valid. The courts are now confirming that the contract was indeed valid. So now the parties go back to the original, pre-Toberoff agreement they mutually negotiated over a decade ago.

Problem solved.

Sean Strong • on Jan 10, 2013 1:43 pm

Had these two families not made any deals with Dc comics, they would both own the full rights to Superman today.Wow.I guess money do talk and this is all the proof you need.You had your attorney write a letter of acceptance and so that’s how the cookie crumbles.

Thanks to this ruling, if Dc comics want to go back to Superman’s original look with the red tights, they can without any penalty.They got rid of it after losing certain rights to the Man of Steel.Now they got all those rights back.

Sean Strong • on Jan 10, 2013 2:33 pm

Plus it was not like the two families were poor.They could have held out and not signed any new deals with Dc comics and signed the copyright termination paper but in the end the money spoke to them.

Basically what you have here is history repeating itself.The Shuster & Siegel heirs have bad blood with Dc comics and yet they just couldn’t help themselves.Had they really held out and not made any deals with Dc comics and then got termination papers signed on time in that order then, well the two families would be the owners of Superman today.

It would be Dc comics and Warner Bros who would be between a rock and a hard place but that’s not what happened.They made a deal with the companies and sealed the fate of Superman.He won’t be coming back to them anytime soon.This legal case is dead and done.

BeccaBlast • on Jan 10, 2013 2:55 pm

The heirs aren’t starving. It’s about time they stop living off their father’s success.

Talmidge • on Jan 11, 2013 11:18 am

they’ve never lived off their father’s success. Their fathers didn’t even get a chance to live off their father’s success. The difference between this case and some of the others is that Warner’s so Royally screwed Siegel and Shuster that this is more about reparations for there crappy treatment then it is anything else.

SickBoy • on Jan 11, 2013 7:34 pm

That’s not exactly true. Years ago, DC gave them their due thanks to the tireless efforts of the artists working at DC at the time. I believe Shuster may have passed at that point, so maybe half true…but DC did generously compensate the creators eventually. The whole notion of DC “screwing” creators doesn’t jibe with how Bob Kane was treated. The problem with the situation wasn’t about “screwing”, it was about existing law of the time and agreements that Siegel and Shuster both agreed to while working for DC. The thought of a steady paycheck beat out any thought of success that the property eventually garnered. They made the what they thought was the best decision for themselves and their families at the time, not having the foresight into what the property would become.
I’m not saying DC/Warner is totally innocent, or being a corporate apologist; but rather looking at the actually unbiased objective reality of what happened.

You should look into the history, because it’s actually interesting even though you are wrong. Basically, Shuster and Siegel tried to get all of the creators together in order to work out more reasonable deals. Whatever DC was then (First National?), they didn’t like the sound of that, so they checked their contracts, made sure they had Superman locked down, and then fired Shuster and Siegel. But when they were checking their legal rights out, they went to Bob Kane because, as the creator of Batman, he was their next most important creator. Bob Kane, having listened to both sides, feigned agreeance with Shuster and Siegel and then, behind their back, went to DC with a proposition. He claimed [most likely untruthfully] that he had been underage when the original contract was signed, and that it was therefore not legally enforceable. DC was panicked because they had just lost Shuster and Siegel, and were prepping for a legal battle against them, so they felt they could not afford to lose Kane and/or Batman. So they gave him a sweetheart deal (screwing over Bill Finger, among others, in the process) the likes of which nobody else in the entire history of comics has ever had.

TheMightyDixon • on Jan 10, 2013 6:32 pm

For the sake of justice I’m happy with this decision. These people contributed nothing to Superman so they are in fact owed nothing. The agreement between at the time with then National Periodical Publications and the creators of Superman was done with respect to the existing laws. It was never thought of in that time that something like Superman would entertain generations of fans and still be around almost 100 years later. Existing law at the time simply didn’t take that possibility into account and laws written since then, partially because of the situation with Superman, in my opinion never should have been allowed to usurp the current and active ownership by Warner Bros. The final possibility I may have accepted is if his the creators heirs had taken some active interest in Superman, beginning with his immediate descendants. They did not! Therefore I feel their heirs today are owed nothing at all. Whatever Warner Bros/DC Comics is willing to give them is a courtesy they should be thankful for and content with.

That being said I hate and despise what the current establishment at DC Comics is doing with the properties owned by DC Comics/Warner Bros. I can only hope with the lousy job this current president is doing defending this country (and everything else he has anything to do with) there will be a resurgence of Al_Queda and they’ll fly a plane into the offices of DC Comics. Perhaps the next regime will have more care for the characters, the product they produce and the fans/readers.

SickBoy • on Jan 11, 2013 7:57 pm

Wow…that’s nice.
Fisrt: Yes, the New 52 is horrible and DC’s “architects” need to be removed from their posts. It’s like the 90’s era of comic books times ten, but with support from thousands of brainless DC fan boys in whose eyes DC can do no wrong.

Second: Wishing for another terrorist attack is sick and perverse and you should be ashamed of yourself, no matter what your political party/affiliation may be. The fact you are hoping for enemies of this country to gather strength speaks volumes about you and your brethren. TREASON is apparently okay if you disagree with the sitting President and believe the mythological reality created by an echo chamber of like minded individuals who share a delusional and failed ideology, purposefully skewing your perception and enabling you to believe exactly whatever it is you want to. Willfully ignoring all facts and evidence in order to convince yourselves you are in the right. Righteousness based on willful self delusion- Facts be damned. You sir, are a HORRIBLE American- as is any American wishing or hoping for this country to fail or for it to be attacked and its citizens harmed. Of course you’ll rationalize some sort of justification as people like you always do…in fact your hope for such horror is based on your pathetic adolescent need to be correct and vindicated. Your hope is based on your need to feel vindicated in your opinions, as the present reality sure isn’t doing it. You are selfish, traitorous scum, sir, and I can only hope that you are an anomaly, and that others like you aren’t so quick and selfish to wish for such things; and if not I only hope you and your ideological brethren don’t destroy this great country based on displaced and ill-conceived pride. Traitor.

Neil feigeles • on Jan 15, 2013 6:03 pm

It just so sad that something as historical as “Superman” something that literally created a genre known as the superhero comic book (that may not be completely historically correct but… its Superman) and such a huge American symbol should have to have this legal battle. Tainting such a cherished character for millions of people around the world.
Reading all the comments, amazing. I do agree… We need the real costume, (actually like what I’ve seen in the clips) but the comic, sorry Jim not a great design. Some thing don’t need change for the better, I mean when you have the perfect creation, why fool with it… I know, it’s an imaginary story, like back in the 1970s.